You know Tom, I like a lot of what your saying but you've totally side stepped DustyZ question by deflecting. Legal opinion isn't just posted on the interweb. It's paid for. Any searches I've done doesn't pull up any "legal opinions" supporting the position you espouse here just a ton of speculation just like yours. I come to this site for information and the information that I generally find acceptable is the information that is quoted from source posters claim or with links to those alternate opinions.
What legal opinions are you privy to that we are not? Your position sounds good but up until now it's just fiction. CASAA and Bill both have impeccable sources (and pedigree). Other than reading and interpreting some very complex law and government bureaucracy, what are these supporting legal opinions?
The OP of this thread posted some very good information that is available for public comment. If you read it, the guides for substantial equivilance are very reasonable, and something that E-Cigs should be able to hurdle with ease. People seem worried that small shops brewing in their backroom will not be able to sell e-juice online. I doubt it, because the ablity to get past the hurdles won't be so hard. If they don't want to be a member of
MEMBERS | AEMSA frankly I don't care if they continue, sorry. AEMSA members will be able to get their papers filled out, they will help each other. AEMSA is a real orgainizaiton making a difference. I see a lot of posts by CASAA but their website is not up to date with anything in the way of accomplishments except from years ago, and those I debate if CASAA was just simply in attendance. I guess I am a tough grader. Not sorry.
Yes I read, and I read what the OP post. I read Sottera. You can read some of what I post below, I did not write it. I am not here to spoon feed everyone the raw information that can be read.
I see on the top of every thread in this forum a call to action, that is years old. It mostly displaced by the Sottera decision and what the FDA has said it is giong to do......but they still have not. When CASAA puts out a battery, (voltage regulated with some nice gizmos, but its still just a power source of DC current....a battery) can be banned and taken off the market.....it shows how many years backwards, and legally wrong. Its a false protrayal of reality of what the FDA is going to do, but I won't tell you you should not donate money to those opinions, its your choice. Factually that presentation by the President of CASAA, citing Godshall.....it just junk. And as I and others are saying, screw on a LED on the end of a Provari, which would be a lovely addition to the box set, and you have an expensive flashlight. It won't come off the market, EVER, unless they themselves want to stop selling it.
So when faced with all this junk and FUD, sky is falling talk, I think its waste of time. Meanwhile tons of local bans are not a waste of time. That has always been my point. CASAA is one of many duplicative information sources of what is going on, but its entirely not effective in doing anything to stop the onlsalught of bans. CASAA has just not been the answer. And I don't want to say they are not trying, they did. Bans are rolling over people, for example the entire UC University system. Maybe its easier to work the problem of what the FDA may do years down the road. Sottera was 3 years ago. But every day, E-Cigs are being sold, large players, TV ads...time marches on.
My point has never been that I am the answer to the question, I know you folks want to go there. The question remains with or without me. I am attempting to refocus where the effort needs to happen. The FDA is a false concern, Bans are where the action is, telling someone a meeting is going down, is nice and all, but writing your Congressman, and your Senator, is going to do NOTHING. Its all on the local level.
Perhaps consider this:
Judge Merrick B. Garland concurred with the majority, but not entirely for the same reasons. Like the majority, Judge Garland agreed that based on the plain language of the Tobacco Act, Sotteras e-cigarettes fall within meaning of tobacco product because the liquid nicotine used in those products is derived from tobacco plants. Therefore, e-cigarettes should be regulated as tobacco products and not drug-delivery devices. However, Judge Garland did not agree that the holding in Brown extended to the e-cigarette situation.
Rather, he stated that the Supreme Courts decision was only meant to apply to products that actually contain tobacco which e-cigarettes do not.
According to Judge Garland, the reason the Supreme Court in Brown held that FDA did not have jurisdiction to regulate customarily marketed tobacco cigarettes as drug-devices was because such products allegedly could not be used safely for any therapeutic purpose, and would thus have to be banned by FDA if the Agency had drug-device authority over them.
However, this premise does not hold true for e-cigarettes or other tobacco-free products that deliver pure nicotine; these types of products could have therapeutic benefits and would not necessarily have to be banned. Finally, Judge Garland acknowledged FDAs argument that its interpretation of the Tobacco Act, as the Agency charged with interpreting the new law, should be entitled to deference (i.e., Chevron deference).30 The Judge stated, however, that because there was no final agency action from FDA interpreting the new law, there was no way
to award such deference to the Agencys position. He concluded with the following: What the result would be were the FDA to offer a contrary statutory interpretation in the form of a regulation, I leave for the day the agency decides to take that step.
On December 20, 2010, FDA, refusing to accept what appeared to be inevitable, filed a Petition for a Rehearing and a Rehearing En Banc, as well as a motion to reinstate the stay of the District Courts decision to grant Sotteras preliminary injunction, arguing that the panels decision was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Brown decision. FDA contended that the panels ruling would erode incentives for companies to develop nicotine replacement therapies, and would exacerbate the problem of nicotine addiction and undercut an important tobacco control measure. On January 24, 2011, the Court of Appeals unanimously denied the FDAs en banc rehearing request and left in place the injunction preventing FDA from barring e-cigarette imports and from regulating the products as drug-devices.
The ruling underscored the panels original decision and forced FDA to consider the extent to which it should regulate e-cigarettes under the Tobacco Act, or appeal to the Supreme Court.
Although e-cigarettes will not require FDAs pre-market approval to be sold, FDA will be able to use its authority under the Tobacco Act to ensure that appropriate age and marketing restrictions are in place, and also require e-cigarette manufacturers and distributors to disclose all ingredients, additives and any potentially harmful constituents used in their products.
----------------Your Tanks and Provaris, are not going to be banned.....CASAA admittedly published...it can happen.....nope, legally wrong, sorry if you don't understand. If its from the President of CASAA, it is CASAA, sorry Kristin, the President speaks for the Organization, that is why they are the President.
says that the FDA would not have this power, Sec. 907.1.3 of FSPTCA states:
